Saturday, June 18, 2011

Fr. Corapi: "Soft you; a word or two before you go"

It has never been my intention to comment much on l'affaire Corapi. We simply don't know enough about the facts surrounding the case to comment intelligently about it. However, one theme that has run through the various communiques issued by the Corapi camp has been about the ecclesial process looking into the matter. Essentially, and variously, the process has been described as lacking transparency, as being fundamentally flawed, and even "of the devil" and so on. While I don't know the facts of the case, I do have some familiarity with the process, and want to comment on it briefly. I do so out of concern over many of Corapi's "fans" who are now vilifying and demonizing "the bishops" and their process.

Let me begin with full disclosure: I was a member of the USCCB's senior staff for more than five years (2002-2007), and a consultant to the USCCB before that and since. It is in this capacity that I offer some observations.

1) I readily acknowledge that no human legal process is without flaws, and I'm not suggesting here that the process being followed is flawless or perfect. On the other hand, it has good points as well.

2) Despite innuendo and even some statements otherwise, this matter is NOT subject to the so-called "Dallas Charter" which address clergy sex abuse cases dealing with children, and vulnerable adults. So, there should be clarity here: Whatever is going on with Corapi vis-a-vis this particular case -- which as I understand it deals with the claims of an adult woman against Corapi -- it does not involve the Dallas Charter and its provisions. So, discussions which suggest otherwise are grossly inaccurate and should be discounted.

3) So, what process IS being invoked? Rather simple, actually: it is the process contained in the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church (the Eastern Catholic Churches have their own Code of Canons). When a cleric is accused of a crime, he is subject both to ecclesial law ("Canon Law") and to civil law. The legislator for a cleric is either his bishop (if he is a diocesan deacon or presbyter) or his religious superior (if he is a member of a religious order). When religious orders minister within a particular diocese, of course, they do so under the authority of the diocesan bishop. For example, if the bishop has asked the Franciscans to staff a particular parish in the diocese, the Franciscan superior will make the actual assignment (he'll pick the priest to be assigned), but the priest will be responsible both to his own superior and also to the diocesan bishop.

4) Now, I'm not too clear about Corapi's arrangement. (I was never aware of him until this whole thing broke in the news.) However, what I'm told is that he was not living in community with this order (SOLT), and so I must presume that his religious superior had agreed with whatever arrangement was in place, and of course, the diocesan bishop would be informed of it, and have to agree with it, as well, especially if he was functioning as a presbyter in the parishes of the diocese. The local bishop would extend faculties (authority) to exercise priestly ministry within the diocese, and so on.

5) Now comes the complaint. Ultimately, the religious superior is the responsible person, and it appears that the complaint was given to the diocesan bishop, who took the steps he needed to, and then referred the rest of it to the superior for HIS action. When a complaint is levied, an investigation is made. It is not uncommon to ask the cleric (presbyter or deacon) to step away from ministry until the investigation is complete and the disposition made. This, of course, is not a question of "presuming guilt" in the matter; it's simply prudential judgment pending the outcome of the case. While it's not a perfect analogy, it's not unlike what happens when a police officer is suspected or accused of wrongdoing; or sometimes just when he discharges his or her weapon in the line of duty. Such an officer is suspended from duty pending the outcome of the investigation; if everything is found to be in order, he is returned to duty. THE REASON FOR THIS IS TO ENSURE THE CONTINUED SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY, not to "presume guilt" of the officer.

Similarly, the bishop/superior's main concern must be the CONTINUED SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY pending the conclusion of the investigation. So, the priest or deacon is asked to step aside from ministry for the good of the community; if he refuses to do so voluntarily, he may be temporarily suspended, exactly as in the case of the police officer. Again, it's about the safety of the community. Once the investigation is complete, and if there's no problem, the suspension is lifted, he "gets his badge back," and returns to serving the community.

6) Now, what has happened in the Corapi case? It appears that, hurt and wounded as he surely is, Fr. Corapi has decided to forego the investigation altogether and simply walk away. No one has asked him to leave the priesthood, nor as any religious superior sought (yet) to have him returned to the lay state. All of this seems to be HIS decision, not ecclesial authority. To use my secular analogy: it would be the same as if the suspended police officer simply decided not to wait for the end of the investigation, and he or she just resigned from the police force altogether. Again, HIS initiative, not the Chief of Police's decision.

Is this a perfect system? Of course not. But I don't see anything in the facts made available to us that suggest the process is in any way unusual or inappropriate. I know that Corapi and his fans are hurting, but in their pain, they should not perpetuate further damage to the Body of Christ.

Thanks for your post. There are some very helpful thoughts. You mention "the continued safety of the community," and while this may make sense to suspend a priest in certain circumstances, it should not apply in all circumstances. As I understand the Corapi allegation, it did not involve criminal misconduct. It would seem that the "safety of the community" is not at issue.

I am a military attorney and the military routinely investigates far more serious allegations and does not suspend the individuals while the investigation progresses. We always use the least amount of force necessary to safeguard the community.

thank you for the educational post. We laity always need greater understanding of the processes; in this case badly-grounded emotionalism is calling too many of the shots, and that only does further harm.

To Boethius: I,too, served in the military (Navy, 22 years active); while we don't have "suspensions" in the military, I can tell you as a former CO and XO that we would always take steps to ensure everyone's safety during an investigation. In the case of ecclesial law and practice, it is usually presumed that almost anything we do has the potential for impact on the community we serve, just by the nature of ministerial service.

"Suspension" is not always necessary. As I put in the original post, the cleric involved may simply take some time away from public ministry during the investigation (this is often referred to an a "leave of absence" -- and it may be done for a variety of reasons). It's only when the cleric refused to do so, OR, if there is something specific that the bishop or superior is aware of (MORE than a simple allegation), even though it may not be public knowledge, then the suspension by the bishop/superior is done. Given what's been done in this case, at least according to what's been reported, the bishop seems to have had such information, which led him to take the step he did.

Thanks for the insights into the general process. I get your analogy, and you do say it isn't perfect, but where it breaks down is that in the case of a police officer, he is usually represented/backed by a labor union and his employment is generally dictated by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Such obviously doesn't exist with priests.

DID the bishop place the priest on suspension? The official statement I read from the bishop said he was on "administrative leave."

Matthew, I'm just a lay person, but it looks like according to canon law the parties are to be questioned by a judge without the other parties present, although items for questioning may be submitted by the parties. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5V.HTM Under the witnesses section, there is the option that if the witnesses/parties disagree in a grave matter, the judge can arrange for them to confront one another.

I wonder if part of the problem is the way the Church law system handles trials differently to the US, and an assumption that the US legal system is inherently the most fair in the world, or some such? Church law has been around longer than US law, and it may certainly have its flaws, but it also has has means of appeal.

As La Mama Loca points out, the two legal systems are quite different. "Facing one's accuser" and "cross-examining her" are part of the procedures of U.S. law, not the Code of Canon Law. Now, of course, there ARE mechanisms under canon law to get to both sides of the issue, but typically that does not involve a face-to-face "Perry Mason" kind of confrontation. Perhaps an experienced canonist can give us more detail. In my experience (and I'm a theologian, not a canonist), canon law deals largely with documentation, not with a U.S.-style adversarial methodology.

On the other hand, if the complainant in this process chooses to file CIVIL charges, then of course Corapi will have that opportunity under US law.

La Mama Loca, you raise good points as well. Some reports I've read mention "suspension" -- now it could very well be that those using this term are using it inaccurately. I'll see if I can find any official statements that will give us the precise language used.

The bottom line, however, remains the same. The canonical process is far from completed. Typically, canonical investigations take a lot of time; for one thing, there simply aren't that many qualified canon lawyers out there! Dioceses just don't employ that many canon lawyers; this is not like US civil law, where we have lawyers all over the place (Anyone gone through the annulment process? They take time, and part of that is the complex requirements of the law as well as the fact that there's quite a workload for a very few degreed canon lawyers). But I digress.

It appears that whatever has been communicated to Corapi from church authorities (bishop/superior), he has not liked what he heard, and HE has decided to walk away before the process is complete.

I've been concerned about another element of this, too. As I said in my original post, I really had not heard of this man before the case broke some months ago. So, while I was not a "fan", I don't have any particular animus against him, either. However, it seems to me that his current decision, along with what appears to be a substantive marketing structure for his new "black sheep dog" brand did not appear overnight. Seems to me that he's been putting a lot of psychic energy into building up this new "brand" when perhaps he should have been cooperating with church and civil authorities in dealing with the allegations being made. I just raise the question.

So many thoughts.....I have a lot of Corapi's lecture materials and have been strengthened by all of them. My wife and I spend our Lenten time watching him rather than TV programming. He alludes to the leadership of the Church being not too good occasionally, and history has shown that to be true. My background is a bit similar to Corapi's also, so I can identify with many of the verbal gestures that he uses in his sermons. Twelve years of Catholic education, 1.5 years in Vietnam, 30 years of "wandering", distrusting, drinking/drugging and finally slowly finding my way back to the Church. When I met my wife in 2002, she converted to the Faith and is an incredible support for my struggle to keep my faith in good shape. He has had to maintain, as all priests do, by himself. I don't believe the accusations made against him. He is a good man and has temptations. If he ever gave in to them, only 3 people know; Corapi, the girl and God. I have admired his resolve and strength in teaching the Church's truths. He has said nothing that is outside of the Chruch's teaching or anything which might even be questionable, as far as I have heard. I will pray for all involved, even myself and my wife, who have learned and been strengthened by his lectures. I am disappointed in his giving up the priesthood, and hopefully he is not giving up the Faith. We don't want to lose him as a teacher. I even ordered 2 lecture series from his "fire sale" that I had wanted to get, but could not afford yet. I am sure they will still be the truth. I am a "fan" of Corapi, I guess, but I would not follow him if he begins to vary or bend the Teaching of the Magisterium. I do believe that a lot of people are condemning him out of frustration in the fact someone they looked up to and listened to has made a radical change in his life. I hope everything works out for all involved in whatever way God wills. Peace and God bless.

Thanks for a very lucid explanation. I am familiar with the stories of some priests who after one unsubstantiated accusation, received a call from the chancery and were told to get their things together and get out of the rectory. Period. No support, no health insurance, no place to live. Others have been treated a bit better. Perhaps those who have harsh things to say about the bishops have been thinking of these types of dismissals. In our diocese we have had some deacons who chose on their own to leave the ministry, and rightly so: abandoning the wife for another woman, etc. Some for obvious mental stress. The priests here who have been dismissed because of accusations seem to disappear; no one knows where they are or what they are doing. My own feelings about Fr. Corapi: find a strict monastery where he can pray and commune with the Lord, and, along with spiritual guidance, can find his way back. He seems to be depressed and has just given up. All our priests and bishops need prayers daily

Deacon Bill: Since you are not acquainted with Fr. Corapi's ministry, let me tell you that he has been feeding the faithful with the pure food of the Gospel and the Catechism of our Holy Mother the Church for the past 20 years.

I am concerned with your statement because you say you were on the staff of the USCCB and I wonder why this body has not done more to protect the vocation of a priest who has proven himself a tireless apostle for Christ and His Church. It is very hard for me to believe that a priest so visibly in love with Our Lady would give up his priesthood if he was offered any hope of having his priestly office restored. Regardless of the uncharitable comments of some bloggers, Fr. Corapi is not a quitter. If he chooses not to engage those who have the authority to shut down his preaching ministry, then I have to believe that he sincerely feels there is no hope. While I am fiercely loyal to the Church, I also accept the reality that She has been gravely harmed by some members in the USCCB who have championed a liberal/progressive agenda in place of Gospel values. Mother Angelica was known to ruffle many feathers there and it appears some would have loved to silence her. I hope this is not the case with Fr. Corapi.

Jesus Christ taught us that even St. Peter was weak and denied Him, and Peter was and he did. And here we are, kicking Fr. Corapi while he is down - Would you have done this to St. Peter too. I think you would. That's a poor example for a Christian, especially for a deacon or a priest. You should do what Christ came to do - to rescue the sinner from death. Our beloved bishops don't need our help, and this is not a time to play politics on the public Internet - this is a time to love truly, and you do not love when you distance yourself from Fr. Corapi. He is mortally wounded, and you treat him with a 10-foot pole. SHAME! The same thing could happen to all of you and even to me. SHAME!

How anyone could be serving the Catholic Church in the USA and NOT have heard or known of Fr. Corapi and his influence over the past 20 years simply astounds me! I will take what I read here from the good deacon with a grain of salt.

How you could find anything I wrote above as condemning of Corapi is really beyond me. As I explained, my only purpose to try to add some clarity about the process being followed in his (and similar) cases. That is all.

By all means, take ANYTHING you read on the internet with a huge grain of salt! And please don't refer to me as "the good" deacon when it is clear from your post that you believe nothing of the kind!

I don't owe you or anyone else a reason for why I'm not familiar with Fr. Corapi and his work, but I'll give one. You say that he's been doing this for 20 years; I'll take you at your word.

20 years ago I was serving in command of a Navy base on Okinawa, finishing up a 22 year Navy career 18 years ago and returning to the States. I then served as Associate Principal of a Catholic high school for a couple of years before getting into a variety of diocesan positions: running the diaconate office for the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, and later as director of pastoral services for two dioceses in the Midwest. I finished a Ph.D. from Catholic University, while being married with four children. From 1996 to 2004 I worked directly on helping the US bishops develop a National Directory on the Formation, Ministry and Life of Deacons, which consumed a lot of time as well. Over those years, out of our 196 dioceses and eparchies in the US, I visited more than 140 of them, usually to talk about the ministry of deacon and priests.

Then, for the last four years I taught Theology full-time at a Catholic university.

Have you any idea how many great preachers we have serving us out there? Do you have any idea how many sources of religious education and catechesis and evangelization are available? I have no doubt that Fr. Corapi touched many people, and for his ministry, I thank God. I also, however, thank God for the countless other evangelists -- no less talented, no less gifted, no less filled with the Holy Spirit -- who serve our wonderful people.

The fact that one lone deacon didn't know anything about this particular priest is my own shortcoming. On the other hand, I probably know a few good and faithful preacher whom YOU have never heard of, either. So, what does all that mean? Believe it or not, for all of Corapi's followers, far more Catholics never heard of him than did. My guess is that more have heard about him since his "troubles" began than before.

The staff supporting the bishops at the USCCB do just that: support the ministry of the bishops. Rarely do we get involved in direct support to individual clerics. In one sense, that would be inappropriate in most cases, since diocesan presbyters and deacons serve directly with and for their bishops, and that's where the most direct support is or should be found.

On the other hand, if you check the USCCB web site, you'll find that the Secretariat for Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations has many initiatives supporting the ministry of our clergy. Archbishop Carlson is the Chair of that Committee; I would urge you to contact him directly if you have suggestions and recommendations on how the staff might do more. That's a serious suggestion, and I know that Archbishop Carlson would love to receive it, and Fr. Shawn McKnight, who now heads that Secretariat, would be most receptive.

You talk as if the bishops are aggressively seeking the truth of the matter, verifying accusations, finding witnesses etc. Fact is, bishops are not doing anything of the sort whether because of disinterest or other. The bishops do not defend their priests. AND if the priest is a thorn in the side of the bishop or other powerful clerics, well then problem solved.

The priest remains in limbo, unable to serve. It's the easiest route for a bishop to take to rid himself of a troublesome priest.

Don't be so naive to think that this doesn't happen more often than you know.

Corapi never should have been ordained a priest, if his background is as depraved as he seems to delight in describing. He was rejected by several orders before SOLT finally took him, probably in desperation. Sure, a man can have a past, sins, faults, and then convert. But there is a level of promiscuity and wildness that shows inherent bad judgment and a weak character. We see now that Corapi never was worthy of the priesthood he now abandons.

Are you sure you intended your comment for this blog? I said absolutely nothing about what role, if any, "the bishops" (which ones?) might be playing in all of this.

In fact, I can assure you that "the bishops" (as in the USCCB as a whole) are not doing very much about Corapi. WHY? Because it's not the responsibility of the bishops to deal with what happens to an individual cleric; that responsibility is the diocesan bishop's and the religious superior involved.

If the bishop decides to take canonical action in the case, that's his responsibility, and if he needs assistance, he will go to the appropriate support offices at the Holy See. It is most definitely NOT the role of the USCCB to serve as an investigative body.

What he WILL do, and this is apparently what Corapi was referring to in his statement, is notify the rest of the US Bishops of the action he takes. This is done in the case of ANY cleric, so that a cleric can't simply move to a different bishop's jurisdiction and present himself for an assignment.

But for the present, I'd appreciate it if you'd point out to me the statements I've made which you find naive. All I've done is outline the procedure being followed, and it wasn't an idealized account. Besides, idealism is not necessarily naivete.

Deacon:It seems that when Father Corapi broke the news of his suspension and published the press release of his superior, it indicated that he "has been placed on administrative leave from priestly ministry". While it did not directly state that his faculties were suspended (though it is implied), EWTN explained their decision to remove his programming by referring to a letter that had been communicated to all bishops which said "Fr. Corapi has been placed on administrative leave and has had all of his priestly faculties removed.”

It's not altogether clear that at the time he was placed on administrative leave, he actually had faculties. The bishop of Helena seemed to make it clear that he did not have any faculties through the diocese, and there was no indication that his residence had any approval even so far as to being able to maintain an oratory on the premises. No one has ever provided a clear explanation of the history of his faculties.

There was a lawsuit back in 2003 in Sacramento between his media companies in which Father was trying to obtain copies of documents files with the diocese and the defendents tried to claim clegy-penitent privilege. I have no idea what became of those documents, but the judge said:"One can also reasonably infer that in whole or in part,the writings at issue do not relate to penitential matters involving confession and absolution, but rather to a reporting of alleged misconduct of Corapi or, as urged by plaintiffs, complaints about the business practices of Corapi. "(Santa Cruz Media Inc. v Saint Joseph Holdings)

Dear Deacon - my advice, since you are a deacon especially, is not to write anything about the accused. You're not his lawyer; you don't know the facts. Give Fr. Corapi a call and offer help. That's charity and compassion - in Christ [I was in prison and you came to me]. Anything else is sort of vain and like gossip and may actually be hurting him and hurting the Church. Let his bishop do the talking. If his bishop is not your bishop, then are you helping your bishop? Just an observation.

First, I'm NOT talking about Corapi; I'm writing about the process being followed. Now, why am I doing this? It is NOT to condemn, belittle or demean ANYONE, least of all Father Corapi.

On the contrary, I wrote the original blog only after I read a lot of confused reactions of many hurting people, people who are struggling to understand what is going on surrounding Fr. Corapi. It was along these lines that I thought some factual input ABOUT THE PROCESS might be helpful to those people and help them find some peace.

My role as a deacon is not merely to assist other clerics find peace, but the people we all serve. In my experience, especially when dealing with a highly emotional situation, getting some facts can be helpful -- for all concerned, including the cleric involved.

I have not, and will not, opine about the merits of the case. But when I hear a lot of wild speculation and demonization of the process born out of emotion and not facts, then I feel a responsibility to say something.

EWTN has millions of viewers around the world. Fr. Corapi was part of their main line up each week with TWO regular programs. I'm sure many people were aware and are aware of who he is and the contributions he has made to promoting and teaching the Catholic faith. I'm sorry you never got to know him via his broadcasts on EWTN.

Thanks for what you said. It is good information. For a while I was tempted to accept the accusation of John Corapi regarding the "unfair and unjust Church process". Being a lay in these matters, I am easily swayed by opinions. It is very important to be better informed about Church processes. A lot of misunderstandings and anti-Church discrimination happen due to this lack of information about how the Church legal system operates. Again, thanks.

For those of you who have been heartsick for Fr. Corapi all weekend, the website below should lift your spirits. It belongs to the Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Corpus Christi (1983-1997). It was under his tenure that S.O.L.T., Fr. Corapi's order was established.

It appears that Fr. Corapi is not leaving the priesthood as New Advent stated in excessively large print on its website. Let's hope this bit of encouraging news will spread just as quickly.

People who are very fond of Fr. Corapi seem to find it difficult to believe that not everyone knows all about him. If you are one of them, please remember than only a minority of Catholics watch EWTN or listen to EWTN radio. And even among them, many prefer to watch or listen to other programs, or are able to tune in only when other programs are on. He has been very influential with a large number of people, but they are still only a small number of all Catholics. So please, don't be offended by someone who doesn't know about Fr. Corapi, or knows who he is but doesn't know anything about the case. And don't assume these people are lying or dissembling just because they have a different experience than you do.

An interview with Fr. Sheehan of SOLT now explains why the investigation seemed to be dragging. Fr. Corapi was trying to enforce a non-disclosure clause that his former employee (and some of his current ones) had signed. He had been invited to move back into community and turned down the offer. Pray that he changes his mind. The article is at http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/father-corapis-bombshell

Here's the problem that I see with this situation:I understand then-Father Corapi to have been suspended from active ministry pending investigation. The allegations relate to possible sexual misconduct with a former employee and drug abuse, particularly with illegal drugs.

The latter is definitely subject to criminal law. The former could very well be as well. Whether the Dallas Charter applies or not, I think law enforcement personnel DEFINITELY should be involved...I thought we had to wrestle with some 10 years worth of bad press because too many bishops DIDN'T do just that...

It's been three months. Any competent investigator should have been capable of discerning enough credible evidence to request an arrest warrant or a grand jury. If not, then-Father Corapi's superiors should've received a report of some sort to declare that he ought to be set back to work and the matter dropped.

Neither of these has happened. It's always possible that then-Father Corapi has been lying, but even that should've been appropriate grounds for some kind of official action.

That we have not seen any of this, but now have a formerly credible priest first being suspended, now feeling compelled to leave the priesthood, smells suspicious to me.

The linked blog post stating that he was NOT leaving the priesthood is incorrect.

His religious superior is quoted as saying, "The investigation was halted after Father Corapi “sent us a letter resigning from active ministry and religious life. I have written him a letter asking him to confirm that decision. If so, we will help him with this process of leaving religious life,” said Father Sheehan."

JMMcKee states: While I am fiercely loyal to the Church, I also accept the reality that She has been gravely harmed by some members in the USCCB who have championed a liberal/progressive agenda in place of Gospel values.

And there in lies the problem...with the USCCB and their progressive/liberal ALINSKY tactics in order to protect their agenda. I hear nothing about the PRO-ABORT-CATHOLICS in Congress [http://www.canon915.org/list_people.php?figure_ind=P] because they, too, are 'progressive/liberal' .... I see what's happening to Father Corapi as "Rule 13" in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. And it takes the focus off of the USCCB's failures to uphold the Church's Pro-Life teaching and their refusal to own up to their own guilt and complicity in failing to promote and uphold the Teachings of the Magisterium.

The USCCB fails to take today's Gospel to heart. They're too busy allowing sin to run rampant in their diocese and across this nation.

PS this is not an indictment against every member of the USCCB. There are some truly godly men doing their best against the tide of those 'progressive/liberals' who would silence them.

LaMamaVoca,While I understand your point, keep in mind that leaving active priestly ministry and the religious life that one has been led to live does NOT constitute a request for laicization.

I don't know if John Corapi will seek the latter or not, but I think it unwise to assume that he's gone for good. According to the former bishop of Corpus Christi, he (John Corapi) may well be pursuing other means of clearing his name, also the credibility of other formerly active priests.Considering how many times he (John Corapi) mentioned the plight of other priests he'd known, that would make perfect sense.

Why do I mention Ann Ball? . . . several, even many, of the Beati and Canonized people she researched were founders and foundressesof brand new Catholic Religious communities, inspired by God to address the crying needs of those times. (poverty, the industrial revolution, mass immigration, the fallout of the French Revolution and its secular and secularizing values etc.)Some of these were either silenced, shut up, or even ousted by THEIR OWN FOUNDED COMMUNITIES . . . untiltime and the fruits of their unique apostolate and finally their respective Bishop exhonerated them.

A similar pattern in the life of Bishop Fulton Sheen. He'd been the smartest graduate ever to pass through Louvain University (1920/Belgium). . . magnum cum laude . . highest marks in everything. They served champagne at his reception;wine went with cum laude, and beer below that.

His first assignment was in England, to a relatively obscure parish of St. Edmund. But even then his preaching began to draw from other parishes. Anyhow, when his term was complete, his Bishop called him back to the States. But Fulton wanted to know, "Why did you put me at St. Edmund's?" "To see if you would OBEY, " was the reply. " Now, run along and teach philosophy at Catholic University . . ." ( Fulton J. Sheen, Treasure In Clay, well worth your time reading! )

Here's the quote from the St. Louis Review, "My canon lawyer and my civil lawyers have concluded that I cannot receive a fair and just hearing under the Church's present process," he said. Fair enough. But so what, Father John? He concludes, "The case may be on hold indefinitely, but my life cannot be."

With that "but", I fear Father Corapi just stepped outside the bounds of the refuge of Holy Obedience, so critical in safely carrying Father Corapi's above mentioned forunners through the crucible of trail and false judgement. As one blogger/ reviewer put it, "He lost it."

Two of the great formative early Church Fathers, Tertullian and Origen, were never declared Saints. Though modern research re-instated them as great theologians, they did espouse certain off-key ideas. They weren't heretics ( from the Greek, herysein, meaning to select, pick and choose), and herectics, as a rule, ARE deep thinkers . . . BUT usually wrong.

Looks like John Corapi has been caught in a similar crucible. Unfortunate that his preaching of Church teaching, including the rich fare on holiness and the saints . . . and the Word of God . . . - heck! . . he was spiritual director/confessor of Bl. Mother Teresa's sisters!! - too bad none of THEIR Divine Fire didn't burn in his own soul NOW. Still, hurt is hurt. And he, like so many of the above-mentioned were deeply hurt.

However, God's not done with him yet. Nor with us. We best not be hasty in writing him off, or anybody else, for that matter.

Better give you a breather, eh Paul!

Bobp.s. . . so, do you still want the set of questions and asnwers? They are well worth viewing.Father Corapi is his usual apostolic self, inspired by the Grace of the Church's calling.

I read you initial post Deacon Bill and then several of the comments. I then went back and reread your post only to find out that you did not if fact say what some of the individuals responded calimed you had said. You were spot on with your input and were fastidious in avoiding criticism of Fr. Corapi. You merely stated the facts, just the facts. Some individuals misinformed response says more about them than anything else. I read many years ago that when two people converse there are actually four people present. You, me, who you think I am, and who I think you are. I feel some of the responders were reading your post with more emotion than thought. Thank you for all you do!

About Deacon Bill

After spending high school and college in Catholic seminary studying for the priesthood, I joined the US Navy and served for twenty-two years. My family and I lived in a variety of places around the world, and my duties involved service as a Hebrew linguist, a Russian linguist and other intelligence-related assignments. After retiring as a Commander in 1993, I have been working in a variety of ministries. I was ordained a deacon of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC in 1990 while still on active duty. As both a lay minister and now as a deacon, I have been involved in adult faith formation, jail and prison ministry, and youth ministry. Even before ordination I served as a parish life coordinator, under canon 517.2, for a small parish community in Maine while stationed at the Navy base in Winter Harbor, Maine. I have the BA (Philosophy) from St. Ambrose University, an MA (Education) from Pepperdine University, an MA (Pastoral Theology) from St. Mary-of-the-Woods College, and the Ph.D. (Theology) from the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC.